>>I don't know where this "hard evidence" requirement came from, but opinion is just that, opinion. <<

That is the very definition of something which is said to be indisputable, as you so claim in your previous message: -"I think they either don't care or realize that what I have put out can't be disputed"-. So if you have stated that it is indeed opinion, then why come back and say it can't be disputed?

>I have been very specific about the observations I have made and trends I see. Steve is one who will say that I don't see what I see or that I am misinterpreting what I see. Where is his "hard evidence"? FWIW, I don't think there is much dispute in the observations I have made. For instance, if I say some thing like: "The Steve Ballmer Video has little to no impact on the overall position of the Fox in the market place", I don't think you could argue and say that is a bad observation on my part.
>

It can have an impact, as someone pointed out it was used to ease the doubts of a manager that was evaluating a solution based on VFP. While it may not be a silver bullet at least it can be used this way, I suppose this can be a valuable tool for people in the consulting business. Granted this may not bring more developers to VFP but can be of help in very specific situations.

>I could also say something like "The new round of .NET MCSD certification does not include Visual FoxPro as a testing component"
>

I trust this is along the same lines than when there was no new certification exams when VFP5 came out. I believe it was said that not enough people took the VFP3 exam, so there was a larger gap between new exams. Of course this is not good for VFP as it gives fuel to the naysayers. Maybe things would have been different if more folks would have taken the VFP6 exams.

(To anyone else reading this, I want to clarify that I am not privy of inside information about VFP exams)

>I could say something like "Offical Microsoft Course number 1609 refers to Visual FoxPro as a good tool for small to medium applications.." Which by the way, the course does say this.
>
>I could say that "The VFP session at Tech Ed in South America only had 20 or so attendees" This is also a verifiable fact.
>
>I could say something like "There was a Seattle Fox meeting about a month or two ago where a group of guys (6 or so) were talking about how tough the Fox job market is.." This really happend because Rod was the speaker and he told me what happened. It is indeed a fact..
>
>I can go on an on with things I see and put it all together to come up with an opinion on where I see things and how the rest of the world has come to its conlusion as far as VFP is concerned. Let me tell you this...if I were patently wrong on something, you can bet that Ken would come up here and correct me. To date, that has not happened. So if you are looking for somebody on the inside, that is about as inside as you can get.
>

I don't think Ken's absence from these threads amounts to a validation of your opinions by him.

>I happen to think I am right and that my opinion is reasonable. You and Steve may think otherwise and like anybody else, you are entitled to your opinions. As far as hard evidence is concerned, I think I have offered some already. I think it is about time for all of you, those that think things are just fine to offer some hard evidence to show that what I have said is wrong.
>
>Good luck...
>
>

My opinion about the marketplace is that the impact of the downturn has affected all developers in the same proportion. If there used to be 30 VB positions and 3 VFP positions there are now 10 VB vs 1 VFP. But there was also a larger pool of VB developers compared to VFP, so now that there are more folks looking for the same positions, who's got it worse?

Nevertheless, it was as important to diversify your skillset and remain marketeable then as it is now. Of course the alternative to remain marketeable is by just being damn good, in which case you can beat most odds. :)

>
>Every hear of circumstantial evidence? Just as admissible as direct evidence.
>
>I don't pass opinions off as fact. Rather, I expound on observable things, make reference to them (which are facts) and base my opinions on that. If you and other choose to ignore and deny, that is fine. But that does not mean what I am saying is not true or has some validity to it...